What's new

Qaher F313 l News & Discussion

The real thing that build China current aviation industries are not the Soviet legacy but China industrialization and correct investment in education and talent.

Iran need to give up prejudice and buy Chinese military equipments first to build up its modern foundation.
@q12093487q
let me put the sanctions aside
but i think iran is interested but there are lots of problems
from ourside
1. budget
2. they underestimate airforce
3. seeking more advance like gth gens
4. seeking/waiting better tech transfer
5. insist on making their own and unique fighter!!!
the otherside
1. there is not a real good option. selling j11/15/16 maybe make russia angry. j10 (very nice choice) has isreali roots (its wired but its embarrassing for anti isreali iran) and there is no export version of j31 j20 YET!
2. political issues ( ofcourse china has it'sown interests in relation with US and saudi arabia and couldn't risk the relations by selling some fighters on a small deal).
a friend of mine working in "Iran Electronics Industries" had a training period in one Chinese elecronic industry for 3 years!
we are just some forum gangs. who cares what others thinking or who knows whats really going on in the politician minds?
 
.
j10 (very nice choice) has isreali roots (its wired but its embarrassing for anti isreali iran)

The J-10 may be an issue for more than just that. I do not know much about the WS-10 but as I understand it still has some reliability issues. Also, the J-10 is relatively short ranged, whereas Iran as a large country needs long range aircraft to defend its territory. I know China is also very large, but we cannot afford the number of fighters China has. It is also less capable in the air compared to the Su-30SM. Its shorter range also means it is less able to carry out offensive operations.

The Su-30 is preferable for Iran as its long range and ability to be an air superiority aircraft as well as other multirole tasks.
 
.
The J-10 may be an issue for more than just that. I do not know much about the WS-10 but as I understand it still has some reliability issues. Also, the J-10 is relatively short ranged, whereas Iran as a large country needs long range aircraft to defend its territory. I know China is also very large, but we cannot afford the number of fighters China has. It is also less capable in the air compared to the Su-30SM. Its shorter range also means it is less able to carry out offensive operations.

The Su-30 is preferable for Iran as its long range and ability to be an air superiority aircraft as well as other multirole tasks.

It would take a big change in Russia-Iran relations for Russia to allow license production for SU-30 in Iran.

Iran’s Air Force is geared to Western technology, Iran’s engineers are more familiar with western based technology. Hell they nicknamed the Qaher as F-313....a clear nod to western style(US) fighters.

Iran’s airforce wants Western fighters believe it or not. They Are willing to accept Russian fighters (SU-30 and SU-35) because of reality not because of preference. I don’t think they view Chinese fighters as worth it.

Thus Iran is not stupid and wants local production and ToT of some kind in regards to SU-30 to prevent Russia from underdeliverings. Hard to see Russia allowing that for many reasons.

Iran is stuck at this point to either having a 70’s airforce for who knows how long or begin a very costly and expensive overhaul of Its airforce using mostly internal projects.

Iran was able to turn its air defense around from a 70’s outdated air defense to more formidable one in under a decade. The airforce will take longer than that.

Iran should take a look at North Korea as an example if you Just sit on your hands and wait. At this point most of North koreas equipment (ex. Air Force) is severely outdated not only due to funding issues, but because lack of development over decades by the military brass that only viewed certain military areas as important.

After 2025 which of Iran’s fighters will still even be able to fly regularly?
 
.
@TheImmortal
as I said there is no real option
j10 (isreali roots)
j11/15/16 & russia......
and
MONEY
like before the sanctions and the story of moldavan mig 29s
political pressures
 
.
drmeson,

Actually, Iran has shown off images of domestically built components of at least one US-built radar they imported: the APQ-153 (which by default also includes the APQ-157 which is only different in that it's modified so the 2nd seater can use it as well).

They've also show off numerous types of other avionics that can be domestically manufactured, ranging from RWRs, ADCs, TACANs, IFFs, and Radar Altimeters for both their Western and Eastern aircraft.

Also, if I'm interpreting that time stamp on that APQ-153 antenna image, it was taken 8 or 9 years ago.
In a methodical research on manned airpower with a main boundary condition of a missile-centric military force, you will get very different results than what can be seen worldwide today.

Here some of the parameters that would flow into the decision making on how in such a case manned airpower would look like:

Availability of following parameters:

- Large heavy artillery rocket arsenal; very low cost with submunition-warhead (100-250km) --> wind corrected higher precision variants.

- Large short range tactical ballistic missile arsenal; low cost submunition-warhead liquids (300-800km) --> more expensive advanced high precision solids (250-800km), with special anti-ship and anti radar variants.

- Large medium range tactical ballistic missile arsenal; medium cost submunition-warhead liquids (1300-2000km) --> more expensive, advanced high precision liquids (250-800km) --> more expensive heavy warhead liquids (2000km) --> more expensive solids (2000km)

- Short-medium range land attack cruise missiles; low cost variant (700km) --> more expensive, advanced variants (1500-2000km).

- Nuclear hardened basing for all the missile arsenal

- Large fleet of tactical UCAVs; Scuicide lowcost (200km) --> single PGM low range (200km) --> low range low PGM payload (200km) --> low range higher PGM payload (200km) --> long range higher PGM payload (2000km) --> jet powered medium range, higher payload (700km) --> jet powered long range higher payload (2000km)

- Guided artillery, 30-80km, tube and rocket

- Anti ship cruise missiles, 15-350km

- Advanced airdefense systems for all important layers; short range, low altitude (AAA/SAM) --> mobile medium range, medium altitude --> medium range high altitude --> mobile medium range, high altitude --> highly mobile medium range, high altitude --> mobile longer range, high altitude --> static very long range, high altitude --> mobile long range, high altitude --> mobile long range, high altitude with anti-BM capability.

- Industry open to novel concepts, as there are no seniors in the aeronautic field that would stick to old proven concepts


Lack of following parameters:

- Advanced, equal to 80's state of the art, jet engine technology of large size.

- Industry experience and expertise for very high performance (payload, range, speed) fighter-bombers such as the Su-57, Mig-31 and F-22.

- Heavily hardened airbases

- Long/large empirical knowledge in aeronautics.

- Airplane industry lobbying for contracts to keep factories open

- Airforce/pilot community lobbying for continued significance of the service.

- Excess financial resources used for prestigious projects/capabilities, but strictly cost-effect driven policy.



If these parameters are the basis of your methodical decision making, the question is what the result will look like.

Will a F-5 or JF-17 or J-10 or F-15 as a result be possible?
Or will the F-313 start to make some kind of sense?
You are the most illiterate and delusional man in the Iranian section on PDF.



This aircraft doesn't exist yet so stop claiming stuff like you are the chief designer. Even if for sake of argument I agree that this aircraft will exist in future and is going to be a sub-sonic, low payload joke without any substantial A2A capability then what is the point of creating this clown cart? Such aircraft may serve their A2G purposes if the air-arm operating them can also field out fair number of air superiority fighters to keep the area clear. IRIAF has no such option. Fly these in future in war and they will be shot at by F-35, F-22, Rafale, EF-2000, F-15SE, F-16 Blk60. You are delusional.



Show the proof or you will be proving to me that you are a delusional man ... show me something instead of hiding behind trash talk. Has there ever been any MAJOR local combat suite up-gradation of IRIAF fleet? provide proof please.

By the way, we have never seen even relic radars like APQ-153/157/120 or AWG-9 being rebuilt with upgraded features inside Iran which IRIAF has been operating for nearly last 5 decades.



Prove it or you are a delusional man.



so you agree with me here that they started with the wrong design at first and project failed despite the mass production propaganda?



Provide evidence to your claim you delusional man. They re-built some 7 x F-5E/F with twin VS just to see how Iranian radars would fare against Hornets ? ... :cheesy: ... If mass production was not the idea then why did decision makers waste millions of dollars and hours of men power on a stupid project that ended up becoming an insult for IRIAF ?



BS again by the usual suspect. Do you think these legendary calculations were not performed by IRIAF, HESA, Defence ministry decision makers that you carried out on a defense forum, yet they still went with announcements like we have created a local F/A-18 which will be mass produced ?

Even if I agree with you that creating a small 3rd generation replica was not feasible for IRIAF from the beginning that it just proves my point that Azarakhsh, Saeghe, Qaher are all propaganda stunts which are used for local consumption from time to time. Iran as a nation can not build a 4th generation fighter jet platform by itself. Engine, Radar, Avionics, Armaments all will have to be imported and that is where the argument of buying a foreign proven platform vs invent the wheel again comes in. I would rather have 3-4 squadrons of Su-30 SM/J-10C fly in the Iranian air space then spend same amount of money on rebuilt 3rd generation Shahi relics or according to you "low payload, subsonic aircraft with no substantial A2A capability" Qaher.

By the way, if Saeghe project would have been a reality with proper foreign input from China, Russia then it could have become something like FC-1/JF-17 or F-20, a potent fourth generation combat platform, built inside Iran. IRIAF would have a future that it currently does not have. No trash talk can change that sore fact.
The J-10 may be an issue for more than just that. I do not know much about the WS-10 but as I understand it still has some reliability issues. Also, the J-10 is relatively short ranged, whereas Iran as a large country needs long range aircraft to defend its territory. I know China is also very large, but we cannot afford the number of fighters China has. It is also less capable in the air compared to the Su-30SM. Its shorter range also means it is less able to carry out offensive operations.

The Su-30 is preferable for Iran as its long range and ability to be an air superiority aircraft as well as other multirole tasks.



How much do you all think it would cost to build, maintain & train pilots on a fleet of 100 F-5/Saegheh/Azarakhsh for a decade?? The number should include the Aircraft, spare parts, maintenance, fuel, training, various ground equipment and tools for maintenance and training that are required, ordinance cost from bombs to IR air to air missiles, pilot gear,...

Now what do you think would be the combat range of an F-5 equipped with 4 500lb bombs + 2 IR Missiles & a fuel pod ( Using 2 J-85 engines to deliver anything less than 4 500lb bombs would be absurd!)

Now compare that with missiles even at a high average of $1Million USD per unite (For targets and missions within 500km) how many missiles and UAV's do you think Iran could potentially build with the same money to combat the very same targets a fleet of 100 F-5's/Saegheh/Azarakhsh would have been used to combat???



As for the J-10 by the most part the same arguments can be made for J-10's because it's Air to Air capabilities compared to modern fighters is limited and their combat radius for air to ground missions is ~600km and although they can carry a far greater payload but the aircraft's alone would cost Iran at least $3Billion USD for a fleet of 100 and arming them, fueling them and maintaining them for a decade could easily cost Iran up to $8 Billion USD
And that's for an Aircraft that wouldn't be able to intercept fighters like the F-15's, Typhoons, F-22's, F-35's,.... or even F-16 or F/A-18 upgraded with AESA radars

So again rather than paying potentially up to $8 Billion USD for 100 J-10's in a decade it would make more sense to produce a stock of 4000 various types of Missiles & UAV's at an average cost of $2Million USD per unit to address targets of up to ~800km away


Fact is for Iran due to it's size and the specific threats facing the country the ONLY type of fighter that would make any kind of financial sense to invest in are
1. Air Superiority Aircrafts & Interceptors to back up our Air Defense & escort other aircrafts & Helo's

2. A fighter that's capable of air to air refueling that can achieve a combat radius of over 1,200km (Without refueling) in a Hi low mission while armed with at least 8 or more 1000lb PGM + IR missiles
 
.
All the cost considerations and missile capabilities are the reason why we need something completely different than almost all other nations.

We don't have the extra money to fight a bombing campaign like the Russians in Syria with that kind of aircraft.

We need something completely different to make sense.
Manned fighter are a useful capability to have, they can support attacked front lines due to their fast geographic positioning capability and also offer flexible attack vectors. In future manned fighters are also needed to guide a group of UACV wingmans.

Here some points:

- Sensors and detection are ground based
- Situational awareness is provided via ground data-links of the sensor fused IADS
- BVRAAM and HOBS IIRAAM pole/launch position is done by the missile itself via increased kinematic performance, not by the launching aircraft. Means bigger missiles instead of more advanced/powerful/expensive aircraft.
- A assassin, low signature, low level concept is desired. The goal is not to fly up high on well detectable afterburner/airframe friction, light up a powerful radar and fight the enemy 1:1. It's not a knight tournament.
- No high speed, but subsonic. Means no expensive, gas thirsty engines, lower maintenance, less expensive airframe.
- No high altitude, high G rated airframe. Means less maintenance, cheaper materials/airframe cost (composites).
- No trade of higher airframe performance for disproportional higher maintenance hours and maintenance cost. Goal is most simple and lowest possible maintenance, well lower than a F-5 (which was 3-4 times lower than F-4, and 10-15 times lower than F-14).
- The lack of afterburner means significantly lower lifetime gas consumption, engines rated at lower specs and engines operating further away from their max. performance levels.
- No high airframe maneuverability. Dogfight is no option, HMS-HOBS-IIR missiles with ASRAAM size booster will assure kill in this engagement regime.
- High PK is assured by long range twin shoots. Evasion of one missile via stuff like TVC and 12G rated airframe at high energy state might be possible, however after that maneuver, the second one will likely hit. ARH and IIR --> work to improve the missile instead the airframe.
- Maximum automatisation, to decrease live training flights. As only 4-5G is necessary, many oldschool training styles can be replaced and simulator used.

These are the guidelines for manned Iranian fighter of this age. I can only hope that the F-313 or a enlarged variant of it is according to these guidelines.
Our special conditions dictate this.
 
.
All the cost considerations and missile capabilities are the reason why we need something completely different than almost all other nations.

We don't have the extra money to fight a bombing campaign like the Russians in Syria with that kind of aircraft.

We need something completely different to make sense.
Manned fighter are a useful capability to have, they can support attacked front lines due to their fast geographic positioning capability and also offer flexible attack vectors. In future manned fighters are also needed to guide a group of UACV wingmans.

Here some points:

- Sensors and detection are ground based
- Situational awareness is provided via ground data-links of the sensor fused IADS
- BVRAAM and HOBS IIRAAM pole/launch position is done by the missile itself via increased kinematic performance, not by the launching aircraft. Means bigger missiles instead of more advanced/powerful/expensive aircraft.
- A assassin, low signature, low level concept is desired. The goal is not to fly up high on well detectable afterburner/airframe friction, light up a powerful radar and fight the enemy 1:1. It's not a knight tournament.
- No high speed, but subsonic. Means no expensive, gas thirsty engines, lower maintenance, less expensive airframe.
- No high altitude, high G rated airframe. Means less maintenance, cheaper materials/airframe cost (composites).
- No trade of higher airframe performance for disproportional higher maintenance hours and maintenance cost. Goal is most simple and lowest possible maintenance, well lower than a F-5 (which was 3-4 times lower than F-4, and 10-15 times lower than F-14).
- The lack of afterburner means significantly lower lifetime gas consumption, engines rated at lower specs and engines operating further away from their max. performance levels.
- No high airframe maneuverability. Dogfight is no option, HMS-HOBS-IIR missiles with ASRAAM size booster will assure kill in this engagement regime.
- High PK is assured by long range twin shoots. Evasion of one missile via stuff like TVC and 12G rated airframe at high energy state might be possible, however after that maneuver, the second one will likely hit. ARH and IIR --> work to improve the missile instead the airframe.
- Maximum automatisation, to decrease live training flights. As only 4-5G is necessary, many oldschool training styles can be replaced and simulator used.

These are the guidelines for manned Iranian fighter of this age. I can only hope that the F-313 or a enlarged variant of it is according to these guidelines.
Our special conditions dictate this.

1. I have heard Iranians repeatedly say that sensor, detection & situational awareness will be ground based as if that's some kind of new tactic but IT IS NOT!

Almost every Air Force on the planet uses ground radars or air born AWACS to help guide their aircraft towards their target and increase situational awareness. This is NOTHING new and Iran was doing that even in the Iran-Iraq war! And yes you have to use your ground radars to help guide your fighters towards what you see on your radars because it's usually radars and early warning systems that pick them up 1st

BUT If a country that's not equipped with a vast number of AWACS restricts it's self to such a tactic then all your enemy has to do is take out your ground radars to make every aircraft you have that relies on that system useless and taking out ground radars from long distances is by far simpler than taking out airborne targets from long distances

Also communications can be jammed or hacked so building an aircraft that's fully reliant on ground sensor is beyond ABSURD!

And most importantly it is NOT even a feasible option to rely on in a country whos terrain is mostly made up of maintains

2.Your calculations are completely miss guided and at the end of the day the only type of Aircraft that are financially feasible for Iran are force multipliers!

If Iran had 100 Su-30's and each aircraft used 1000 gallons per flight during peace time 100 days out of the year at $5 USD per gallon how much fuel do you think that would cost for the entire fleet?? Now if you were to compare that number with the number of light subsonic aircraft you would need to match the capabilities of 100 Su-30's and you would end up with a number far greater than the cost of fuel of 100 Su-30's

Even if you were to compare it with an equivalent number of F-5 or Yak-130 or F-313 or Kowsar trainers by the most part the cost of fuel will be inconsequential! Your looking at ~$25 million USD a year difference between the fuel cost of 100 Su-30's as appose to 100 F-313's or F-5's



Now lets compare force multipliers each Su-34 or F-15 can easily do the job of 6 or more F-5's or F-313 that have been upgraded with Air refueling capability
Now which do you think would be cheaper and easier to fuel and maintain in the long run?
A single Su-34 with 2 engines or 6 F-5's or F-313 equipped with 12 engines. clearly the sukhois would be cheaper

If we were to put that in real life practice the job that 10 Su-34 + 4 Su-35 can accomplish against an enemy Air Base +800km away from Iranian Air space would require 60 upgraded F-5's or F-313's accompanied by various other support aircraft to accomplish and at the end of the day the 10 Su-34 will be far more successful accomplishing their task than 60 F-5's or F-313....


And you talk about Aircraft providing Air cover for ground forces fact is the only way your aircrafts could potentially provide cover for ground force is if you 1st obtain Air Superiority over the battlefield

In 8 years of war Iranian F-5's only managed to get 1 or 2 confirmed hits with AiM-9 Air to Air missiles & they had more kills with their guns than with missiles


And today high maneuverability will more likely be used for evading incoming missile so it is vital for survivability
 
Last edited:
.
Any fool that puts his capability in missiles alone deserves to lose a war.

What Vevak suggests is borderline ludicrous, he assumes Iran’s economy will remain the same for next 100 years so by that logic it should not develop fighter craft technology.

Iran is not poor by any means, if they were they wouldn’t have poured 100+ billion dollars (possibly much more) into a nuclear program that is nothing more than a token program at this point. Not to mention the money poured into the Arak nuclear plant only for Iran to fill the reactor with cement and get zero benefits in return.

So can Iran start a fighter program? Yes it can. When not having one becomes a existential threat to the government and nation then the cost is irrelevant.

The problem is Iran’s leadership is corrupt and stubborn and upper brass of IRGC is borderline incompetent in certain areas. The war in Syria was a prime example.

With decent Air Power the war would have been much shorter and less casaulties. Imagine if Iran had AC-130 gunships or B-52 bombers to drop massive payloads and sustained fire on enemy positions instead of sending wave after wave of fighters. Assad used missiles in early days and throughout the war it had zero effect on battlefield.

IRGC brass was stubborn and believed manpower alone could win battles. Hell some IRGC brass believed the war could not be won and diplomacy must occur. Now IRGC May have changed their tune a little since they want a CAS fighter...we will see what comes of that.

My point is to think that you can replace AirPower with UAV and Missiles is hilarious and belongs in the realm of science fiction.
 
.
@VEVAK

If ground based radars can be taken out, so can AEW aircraft. Irans IADS is ground based and supported by assets like OTH radars. If it collapses then a airborne fighter radar won't make the difference.

I don't plan to use my F-313 against an enemy airbase if the threat level is not sufficiently low. Instead sending Su-34 on a risky strike mission in enemy airspace, I use BMs and CMs to knock it out first.
Hence a costly capability of the Su-34; large supersonic low level interdictor, is not planned to be used --> don't waste money on it --> don't use expensive Su-34.

Su-30 for multirole and foremost air defense is also obsolete conventional doctrine not suitable for Iran. I wait in defensive posture with my F-313 assassins, low in the mountain valleys with their long range BVRAAMs, for the conventional enemy force to come. I don't scramble four Su-30 to intercept 6 high flying F-22, formation against formation.

I use a turboprop drone to haul my bombs and only in clear, uncontested (high altitude) airspace.

Yes I rather use 20 F-313 with lower payload but just 1/20 maintenance effort compared to a F-14, or 1/15 compared to a F-15, or 1/10 compared to a Su-30. Fuel is less important than those costs but be sure that there is a great fuel consumption difference for a fighter with a designed nominal operation point/regime at subsonic speeds. Burning less gas also helps with smaller logistic footprint, unconventional basing methods and most importantly gives me the increased endurance to position for assassination.

I don't want any costly support aircraft for my operation. No AEW, no EW, no tanker. Let the Saudis fly their "anti-terror" campaign with such support aircraft and bleed their money. Such concepts are no option for Iran.

1. I have heard Iranians repeatedly say that sensor, detection & situational awareness will be ground based as if that's some kind of new tactic but IT IS NOT!

On the integrated scale Iran would be doing it, it is something new. Which IADS could ever use assets such as OTHR? Yes Russians are the kings in this field but this is something new for Iran.

Also communications can be jammed or hacked so building an aircraft that's fully reliant on ground sensor is beyond ABSURD!

No. It is absurd if it would be fragile enough to be jammed or hacked on wide scale. Same as ground based radars, if done in the right way, they won't fail. Americans are good but they can't to black magic.

Finally: My F-313 assassins, each kill one enemy fighter with their payload. They launch 2 ARH BVR with the right time between the shots, so that high maneuvering might lead to a miss of the first one but make the second one quite certain against a target which hast lost its high energy state. If it's not successful the F-313 escapes back to it's base, like a assassin would do... reload, and try again.
We can make best use of terrain masking, like almost no other country.

Let the IRIAF work with it's F-14 for now and make use of their long range BVRAAMs in Parthian shot tactics. Give them a small fleet F-22, or more realistic Su-57, those are useful today. But the main force should be a sizable fleet of my outlined F-313, to support the IADS where it is under heavy enemy pressure, undetected, from optimized attack vectors.
Low payload is relative: Low for a bomb truck mission? Yes maybe.
Low for a interception? No, those two long range BVRAAMs will be good enough.
 
.
@VEVAK

If ground based radars can be taken out, so can AEW aircraft. Irans IADS is ground based and supported by assets like OTH radars. If it collapses then a airborne fighter radar won't make the difference.

I don't plan to use my F-313 against an enemy airbase if the threat level is not sufficiently low. Instead sending Su-34 on a risky strike mission in enemy airspace, I use BMs and CMs to knock it out first.
Hence a costly capability of the Su-34; large supersonic low level interdictor, is not planned to be used --> don't waste money on it --> don't use expensive Su-34.

Su-30 for multirole and foremost air defense is also obsolete conventional doctrine not suitable for Iran. I wait in defensive posture with my F-313 assassins, low in the mountain valleys with their long range BVRAAMs, for the conventional enemy force to come. I don't scramble four Su-30 to intercept 6 high flying F-22, formation against formation.

I use a turboprop drone to haul my bombs and only in clear, uncontested (high altitude) airspace.

Yes I rather use 20 F-313 with lower payload but just 1/20 maintenance effort compared to a F-14, or 1/15 compared to a F-15, or 1/10 compared to a Su-30. Fuel is less important than those costs but be sure that there is a great fuel consumption difference for a fighter with a designed nominal operation point/regime at subsonic speeds. Burning less gas also helps with smaller logistic footprint, unconventional basing methods and most importantly gives me the increased endurance to position for assassination.

I don't want any costly support aircraft for my operation. No AEW, no EW, no tanker. Let the Saudis fly their "anti-terror" campaign with such support aircraft and bleed their money. Such concepts are no option for Iran.



On the integrated scale Iran would be doing it, it is something new. Which IADS could ever use assets such as OTHR? Yes Russians are the kings in this field but this is something new for Iran.



No. It is absurd if it would be fragile enough to be jammed or hacked on wide scale. Same as ground based radars, if done in the right way, they won't fail. Americans are good but they can't to black magic.

Finally: My F-313 assassins, each kill one enemy fighter with their payload. They launch 2 ARH BVR with the right time between the shots, so that high maneuvering might lead to a miss of the first one but make the second one quite certain against a target which hast lost its high energy state. If it's not successful the F-313 escapes back to it's base, like a assassin would do... reload, and try again.
We can make best use of terrain masking, like almost no other country.

Let the IRIAF work with it's F-14 for now and make use of their long range BVRAAMs in Parthian shot tactics. Give them a small fleet F-22, or more realistic Su-57, those are useful today. But the main force should be a sizable fleet of my outlined F-313, to support the IADS where it is under heavy enemy pressure, undetected, from optimized attack vectors.
Low payload is relative: Low for a bomb truck mission? Yes maybe.
Low for a interception? No, those two long range BVRAAMs will be good enough.


Aircrafts with long ranges and high speeds can be stationed deep inside Iranian territory allowing you time to scramble them before cruise missiles or invading aircrafts reach those locations
That's why you have early warning sensors!

U.S. is not the only threat facing Iran and yes against the U.S. I would NOT send a fleet of Su-30's up to intercept F-22's over the Persian Gulf that would be absurd!
But by the most part the decision to send Su-30 to intercept F-22's would depend on the location of the F-22's how deep they are inside Iranian territory, what aircraft they are escorting or if I have Air Defense systems over that area or not! So it depends! F-22's are not indestructible and if they are deep inside Iranian territory and I have a verity of SAM providing cover then yes I would send Su-30's up to back up my Air Defense even against F-22's

How exactly are F-313's going to launch BVR missiles?
And do you know how big a missile is going to have to be to achieve BVR when fired from a low altitude subsonic aircraft? Such a missile would have to be as big as the Sayyad-2 missile with a very advanced radar seeker & data link.... and even then unless Iran has developed scram jet technology your looking at a range of 40-50knot (70-100km) for a missile the size of the Sayyad-2
And launching them from the internal weapons bay of an F-313 from low altitude is just not realistic the missile would need to achieve a good distance from your aircraft before it turns on it's engines or else the hot gas from the engine would easily burn the skin off the F-313

Putting BVR missiles on an F-313 is nothing but a delusion! The F-313 is nothing more than Iran's low cost version of the F-117 and they were built to deliver 2 1000lb bombs and come home NOTHING MORE! which in my opinion is absurd because your using a single J-85 engine for each 1000lb bomb on a light airframe with low survivability and maneuverability
Same argument can be made for your BVR variant if your building a platform that so reliant on ground data you might as well just build a UAV at a much lower cost powered by a single J-85 or a multi stage SAM missile that's powered by a far cheaper turbojet engine by merging the karrar and Shahin SAM into one missile.....

And how big of an F-313 fleet do you plan on having????? And where exactly did you wanna station them?

As for Ballistic Missiles against airbases how many Ballistic missiles do think Iran would need to fire at bases such as these to have a real effect? (each located +1200km from Iran)
I can promise you that if Iran fired 200 Ballistic missiles with a CEP of 100 meters at each of these bases we still wouldn't be able to take out even close to half the fighters stationed at these bases

Ballistic Missiles alone are not sufficient nor does Iran produce enough of them nor can Iran launch enough of them simultaneously at targets beyond 1200km for them to be a sufficient retaliatory weapon!


upload_2018-4-6_11-1-48.png


upload_2018-4-6_11-3-10.png




Focusing on building a large fleet of low cost F-313's is both a waist of time and money!
Iran should purchase a fleet of ~100 of the most advanced Air Superiority fighter it can get it's hands on until we can build our own
As for a domestic project Iran should instead focus on building a smaller fleet of 40-60 heavy long range fighters capable of delivering a large payload to complement it's Ballistic Missiles, Cruise Missiles and UAV's
 
.
Aircrafts with long ranges and high speeds can be stationed deep inside Iranian territory allowing you time to scramble them before cruise missiles or invading aircrafts reach those locations
That's why you have early warning sensors!

U.S. is not the only threat facing Iran and yes against the U.S. I would NOT send a fleet of Su-30's up to intercept F-22's over the Persian Gulf that would be absurd!
But by the most part the decision to send Su-30 to intercept F-22's would depend on the location of the F-22's how deep they are inside Iranian territory, what aircraft they are escorting or if I have Air Defense systems over that area or not! So it depends! F-22's are not indestructible and if they are deep inside Iranian territory and I have a verity of SAM providing cover then yes I would send Su-30's up to back up my Air Defense even against F-22's

How exactly are F-313's going to launch BVR missiles?
And do you know how big a missile is going to have to be to achieve BVR when fired from a low altitude subsonic aircraft? Such a missile would have to be as big as the Sayyad-2 missile with a very advanced radar seeker & data link.... and even then unless Iran has developed scram jet technology your looking at a range of 40-50knot (70-100km) for a missile the size of the Sayyad-2
And launching them from the internal weapons bay of an F-313 from low altitude is just not realistic the missile would need to achieve a good distance from your aircraft before it turns on it's engines or else the hot gas from the engine would easily burn the skin off the F-313

Putting BVR missiles on an F-313 is nothing but a delusion! The F-313 is nothing more than Iran's low cost version of the F-117 and they were built to deliver 2 1000lb bombs and come home NOTHING MORE! which in my opinion is absurd because your using a single J-85 engine for each 1000lb bomb on a light airframe with low survivability and maneuverability
Same argument can be made for your BVR variant if your building a platform that so reliant on ground data you might as well just build a UAV at a much lower cost powered by a single J-85 or a multi stage SAM missile that's powered by a far cheaper turbojet engine by merging the karrar and Shahin SAM into one missile.....

And how big of an F-313 fleet do you plan on having????? And where exactly did you wanna station them?

As for Ballistic Missiles against airbases how many Ballistic missiles do think Iran would need to fire at bases such as these to have a real effect? (each located +1200km from Iran)
I can promise you that if Iran fired 200 Ballistic missiles with a CEP of 100 meters at each of these bases we still wouldn't be able to take out even close to half the fighters stationed at these bases

Ballistic Missiles alone are not sufficient nor does Iran produce enough of them nor can Iran launch enough of them simultaneously at targets beyond 1200km for them to be a sufficient retaliatory weapon!


View attachment 464288

View attachment 464289



Focusing on building a large fleet of low cost F-313's is both a waist of time and money!
Iran should purchase a fleet of ~100 of the most advanced Air Superiority fighter it can get it's hands on until we can build our own
As for a domestic project Iran should instead focus on building a smaller fleet of 40-60 heavy long range fighters capable of delivering a large payload to complement it's Ballistic Missiles, Cruise Missiles and UAV's


Indeed, simply, without top notch accuracy for BM's and CM's Iran will never be able to effectively bomb a hostile airbase like the Americans are capable of.
 
. . .
BREAKING:


This guy is on point 99.9% of the time with his news sources!!

Wouldn't be that surprising the last time Iran publicly showed the F-313 was almost a year ago and the aircraft they showed was nothing special

It's a subsonic aircraft equipped 2 OwJ or J-85 engines and very simple sensors and avionics

But in his last interview and according to Iran's Defense Minister in the upcoming year Iran's top achievements will be
Increasing missile capabilities, Testing Bavar-373, Kowsar-1 will finish it's test flights and Kowsar-88 will conduct it's 1st test flight.


The main problem with the F-313 program is lack of payload and at the end of the day Iran would need to produce at the very least 250 F-313 to make up for 50 F-4's and it doesn't matter that 250 F-313's will be cheaper and easier to produce than 50 F-4's because housing them, fueling them and maintaining them will NOT be cheaper so this is not a platform that would help replace Iran's aging fleet
 
.
Wouldn't be that surprising the last time Iran publicly showed the F-313 was almost a year ago and the aircraft they showed was nothing special

It's a subsonic aircraft equipped 2 OwJ or J-85 engines and very simple sensors and avionics

But in his last interview and according to Iran's Defense Minister in the upcoming year Iran's top achievements will be
Increasing missile capabilities, Testing Bavar-373, Kowsar-1 will finish it's test flights and Kowsar-88 will conduct it's 1st test flight.


The main problem with the F-313 program is lack of payload and at the end of the day Iran would need to produce at the very least 250 F-313 to make up for 50 F-4's and it doesn't matter that 250 F-313's will be cheaper and easier to produce than 50 F-4's because housing them, fueling them and maintaining them will NOT be cheaper so this is not a platform that would help replace Iran's aging fleet

Interesting, what's the difference between Kowsar-1 & Kowsar-88? I know the latter is the trainer jet that was shown last year.
 
.

Latest posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom